User talk:J Milburn

Archives

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by .

Thanks for dropping by! Please leave new messages at the bottom of the page. Messages here will often be read by a number of people. If you would rather discuss an issue privately, you can email me. I typically reply here, and, if I do, I will typically tag you in the message. If I haven't gotten back to you in a week and/or haven't gotten to something I said would, feel free to leave a reminder.

Advice...

On Talk:James Stuart, Duke of Cambridge/GA1... I'm really not comfortable passing this article with its current sourcing... but I don't want to be accused of "gaming" wikicup either... any advice? Ealdgyth - Talk 14:40, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, you're fine IMHO. Using older sources + the diary, which is a primary source, is problematic for even GA. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 20:52, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And something else...

I think the bot may be off on figuring multiplyers for Wikicup.... here it gives me 3x for Middle Ages but ... looking at the 31 December 2011 version I count 109 wikilinks - which should be a 4x multipler? It didn't make any difference on the last round but... Ealdgyth - Talk 14:54, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is completely my fault (it was a simple off-by-one error on a loop). The consequence was that all 4x articles were being reported as 3x, but I'm thinking (hoping) you were the only one that got a 4x promoted. Should be fixed now but won't be back-dated, alas. - Jarry1250 ^{[Deliberation needed]} 10:56, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not that worried, Jarry - your bot is incredible and these things happen... Ealdgyth - Talk 12:37, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, all's well that ends well I guess, and the bot is fixed now :) - Jarry1250 ^{[Deliberation needed]}

The Signpost: 11 June 2012

Special report: Springer's misappropriation of Wikimedia content "the tip of the iceberg"

News and notes: Foundation finance reformers wrestle with CoI

WikiProject report: Counter-Vandalism Unit

Featured content: The cake is a pi

Arbitration report: Procedural reform enacted, Rich Farmbrough blocked, three open cases

Technology report: To support or not to support IPv6, and why knowing when this report was last updated might be getting easier

FPC help, please

Hi. Will you take a look at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/1929 Belgian banknote redux? It's been open for a long time. I haven't closed it because of the copyright concerns. Since you've worked with OTRS and copyright stuff, I'd appreciate it if you could give the nom a look and, possibly, the J Milburn Stamp of Approval. Everything looks fine to me, but I'm reluctant to promote the image until I see someone say that it's fine. Thanks!! Makeemlighter (talk) 00:43, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Makeemlighter (talk) 02:43, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Is there a policy against or something for someone to take your comments from a talk page put them on their user page and make responses to them therefore preventing you from replying or something? Seems a bit aggravating.. hehe.. (ex. User:Wekn_reven_i_susej_eht does just this). — raeky t 13:59, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, J Milburn. You have new messages at Talk:Amylostereum/GA1.
Message added 16:45, 13 June 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

GoP_T^C_{N 16:45, 13 June 2012 (UTC)}[reply]

Deletion query

Hi J, i see you've put a [file of mine] up for speedy deletion review. Just want you to know the file does have a complete fair use rationale and it has been reviewed and marked keep already. Mikething (talk) 15:25, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"The result of the discussion was: keep, now tagged with a non-free license, so not eligible for deletion through this venue". It was tagged as free, and then corrected to non-free. As such, it was not deleted, but that discussion certainly does not preclude it being deleted for other reasons. I have nominated it for deletion as it clearly fails the non-free content criteria; specifically, point 8 (what is this really showing? Yes, shopping channels were used, but why can we not just say that?) and 3 (this is an enormous video- non-free videos, while not banned, should only be used very sparingly. Why is one needed here?). J Milburn (talk) 15:29, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, it is a bit hefty for 12 seconds (that could be fixed). But on the grounds of point 8, it's at least debatable. The video does demonstrate the extreme degree of salesmanship employed in the selling of his prints better than the text. I see that as an important aspect of his work. Still, if you disagree please kill it, i'm not territorial about it! Mikething (talk) 15:42, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]